For Complainant          :             Self.

For Opp. Party               :             Sri Kishore Kumar Patnaik, Advocate

1.                         The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he availed loan from the OP vide loan A/c. No.LTJEY00008227784 for purchase of a motor cycle and the loan EMIs were collected by the OP through its agent.  At last the collection agent did not come to collect the EMI and the complainant thought that the loan EMIs have been duly paid but surprisingly he received a demand notice dt.06.03.2019 from the OP asking the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.18, 027/- towards loan dues out of which Rs.4003/- is principal and rest of the amount is towards interest and penalty.  It is submitted that the complainant on the same date i.e. 06.03.2019 deposited the demanded amount of Rs.18, 027/- by cash with the OP and requested the OP to release NDC enabling the complainant to sell the old vehicle and purchase a new one in its place but the OP in spite of repeated requests through personal approach and email is not responding to the complainant in any manner.  Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Op, he filed this case praying the Commission to direct the OP to issue NDC in respect of the vehicle and to pay Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                         The OP in this case filed counter at a belated stage denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the financial assistance advanced in favour of the complainant vide loan A/c. No.LTJEY00008227784 dt.17.10.2006 towards purchase of vehicle.  It is contended that the OP advanced a loan of Rs.40, 400/- with interest of Rs.8848/- at 19.79% p.a. to be repaid by the complainant in 24 EMIs of Rs.2052/- each payable on monthly basis and the complainant agreed to pay the EMIs through PDCs.  It is contended that 6 cheques were returned due to insufficient fund in the accounts of the complainant and hence instalment over due, cheque bounce charges and additional interest reflected in the loan account as pending dues.  It is further contended that the OP issued demand notice to the complainant for payment of loan dues of Rs.18, 027/- on 06.03.2019 and the complainant has paid the same amount through cash on 06.03.2019 i.e. on the same day.  The OP also further contended that they have issued No Due Certificate to the complainant on 16.03.2019 by local/ordinary post.  Regarding issue of NOC, the OP contended that the complainant has not updated RC number of his vehicle in the bank record and hence NOC could not be issued in favour of the complainant.  With these and other contentions denying any deficiency in service, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                         Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The OP filed affidavit.  We have heard from the complainant at length.  It is seen from the record that 8 months after receipt of notice, the A/R for the OP filed Vakalatanama and counter on 19.10.2020 at about 12.45 pm.  It is also seen from the complainant was regularly attending this Commission on the dates fixed.  Finally on 16.10.2020 the complainant through a memo prayed this Commission to finalise his case after hearing since he is facing difficulties in selling his old vehicle due to non issuance of NOC by the OP.  Considering the memo, we have heard from the complainant at length and posted the case for orders on 29.10.2020.  After that Sri K. K. Patnaik, Advocate sent counter and Vakalatanama through somebody said to be his associate, who had no signature in the Vakalatanama and hence the OP was given time to file written argument before the date of judgment.  The A/R for the OP failed to file written argument.  We have carefully perused the materials available on record.

4.                         In this case loan advanced by the OP vide Agreement No.LTJEY00008227784 dt.17.10.2006 for Rs.40, 400/- in favour of the complainant towards purchase of motorcycle is an admitted fact.  It is also an admitted fact that the complainant was to repay the loan amount with interest at 19/79% in 24 EMIs at Rs.2052/- per month and the complainant had deposited 24 PDCs for recovery of loan dues.  The case of the complainant is that EMIs were being collected by the agent of the OP.  At last the agent did not come to collect the dues and hence the complainant was on impression that the EMIs have been duly paid but he received a demand notice dt.06.03.2019 from the OP to deposit Rs.18, 027/- towards loan dues out of which Rs.4003/- was only towards principal and rest amount was towards late interest and penalty to which the complainant has paid in cash to the OP on the same day and date.  The OP without any instruction assured to release NOC in favour of the complainant but to no action.

5.                         It is seen from the record that the complainant has sent 3 email requests to the OP on 16.03.2019, 21.04.2019 and 06.02.2020, the copy of which is available on record, to issue NOC.  On perusal of said letters it is seen that the complainant has supplied his mobile number and address of correspondence to the OP to send the NOC.

6.                         The OP stated in his counter that the complainant has defaulted in payment of loan dues and thus violated loan agreement.  It is also further stated that 6 Nos. of cheque issued by the complainant were bounced due to insufficient fund in the accounts of the complainant and upon demand notice dt.06.03.2019 asking the complainant to deposit Rs.18, 027/-, he has deposited the same amount eventually on 06.03.2019 by cash.  Thus the OP zeroes the loan account on 06.03.2019.

7.                         The complainant stated that he requested the OP to issue NOC soon after the payment of loan dues but the Ops took time stating that they have nothing to do with issue of NOC but their Head Office is to issue the same.  The OP stated that after liquidation of loan account they issued NDC on 16.03.2019 by local/ordinary post to which the complainant denied.  The OP has filed copy of NDC dt.16.03.2019 but failed to furnish the exact mode of dispatch.  Neither relevant portion of dispatch register nor any electronic dispatch proof has been filed by the OP in support of their contention that they have dispatched the NDC to the complainant on 16.03.2019.  If the OP can issue demand notice by registered post or through special messenger, why should they issue NDC through ordinary post, though the NDC is an important document for both the parties.  In absence of any supportive document regarding dispatch of NDC, it can be hardly believed that the OP has issued NDC to the complainant on 16.03.2019.  Therefore, it is proved that issue of NDC on 16.03.2019 is an afterthought of the OP and has been fabricated for the purpose of this case. However, the OP has stated in the copy of NDC filed by it that the loan advanced to the complainant has been completed on 08.03.2019 whereas the loan dues were closed on 06.03.2019.  If the OP has issued NDC on 16.03.2019, it could have added a line in that letter advising the complainant to update RC number to the loan account or supply RC number enabling the OP to issue NOC in his favour but the OP did not do so.  General public do not know the cumbersome procedure of the bank and they must be aware of the fact by the bank authorities from time to time.

8.                         It is not understood as to why the OP issued demand notice after 11 years gap to the complainant demanding dues on multiple heads.  It is seen that the OP as per their norms has received principal outstanding, let payment penalty, cheque bounce charges etc. totalling a sum of Rs.28, 027/- and closed the loan accounts.  Hence there should not be any discussion regarding any fault on the part of the complainant in payment of loan dues.  But it is a matter of discussion that after receipt of loan dues and after receipt of email requests from the complainant, the OP did not bother to issue NDC/NOC in favour of the complainant. The complainant has sent 3 emails with mobile number and address details requesting issue of NOC and the OP must have received the same.  No reply to those emails or any advice in shape of answer has not been issued by the OP.  The complainant submitted at the time of hearing that he has approached number of times personally to the OP at his office to get NOC but every time the OP has stated that they have no role in issuing NOC but their Head Office is responsible in that matter.  The OP has not filed a single scrap of paper regarding any intimation sent by it to their Head Office to fetch the NOC to the complainant.  No steps have been taken by the OP after receipt of full loan dues from the complainant.  This inaction of the OP amounts to serious deficiency in service on its part.  This is a take and leave policy adopted by the OP, that we found in this case.

9.                         It is seen that after 11 years the OP has sent demand notice to the complainant.  Had the OP issued demand notice early, the complainant would not have paid such a huge penalty to the OP.  However, the complainant prudently deposited the entire amount on the same day of demand notice.  Silence of near about 11 years shows a different story in this case.  Therefore, in our opinion, this is a clear cut unfair trade practice adopted by the OP for which the complainant had to pay such a huge amount to the OP.  Further after getting the loan dues and after getting email requests, the OP did not take any action which is quite unlawful acts done by the OP.

10.                       From the above discussions, it is clearly noticed that the OP has committed deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice by not intimating the further course of action to be taken by the complainant in spite of receiving full payment and getting email requests and thus deprived the complainant to get the NDC and NOC in due course.  Due to such inaction of the OP, the complainant must have suffered mental agony and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure and hence he is entitled for some compensation and cost of this litigation.  Considering the suffering, we feel, a sum of Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation besides Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

11.                       Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP is directed to issue NDC & NOC in favour of the complaint after observing due formalities and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation besides Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)